10.2. Inter-professional working group for overviewing the systemic problems… in cooperation with the Ministers of Interior and Human Capacities, the establishment of an inter-professional working group (hereinafter the Working Group) for remedying the systemic problems specified in my report. The participants of the first meeting of the Working Group held on June 12, 2017 agreed on the necessity of establishing a new institution for the provisional placement and rehabilitation of patients to be released from the FPMI. My colleagues noted that segmented forms of care should be provided, and the necessary resources should be allocated. It would be appropriate to set up a two-way system where patients could be sent to the institution both from the FPMI and from “civil” psychiatric institutions as well. According to the representative of the Ministry of Justice, new legislation would be justified only after setting up the necessary infrastructure and the institutional framework, and it should be clarified as soon as possible whether this institution of a new type should operate within the framework of the penitentiary system. He asked the participants to send in the relevant data at their disposal and their proposals regarding the issues raised during the meeting, as well as to indicate the involvement of which organs and experts they deemed necessary. The second meeting of the Working Group held on December 4, 2017 focused on the forms of establishing and operating an institution facilitating, in a more liberal regime, the reintegration of persons released from the FPMI into society. My colleagues stressed that it gave cause for serious concern that those unable to start an independent life, irrespective of the extent of threat that they pose to society, may have to spend the remaining part of their lives in the FPMI, i.e., in the penitentiary system. It falls under government competence to decide whether this new institution, which is suitable for providing adequate pre-care, should operate within the frameworks of the healthcare or the penitentiary systems. According to the Ministry of Human Capacities, the current system’s biggest shortcoming is that the restriction of personal liberty could be applied in social care institutions only when behaviours presenting direct danger are imminent, even if they had the required capacity. A provisional institution would be needed where both social and healthcare are provided within one institution, and those concerned could be compelled to simultaneously avail themselves of both social and healthcare services. The representative of the Ministry of Justice could accept a solution when adaptive leave, with the possibility of termination, should be spent in a social care institution, with the proviso that the scope of applicable restrictions was provided for in a legal regulation. The members of the Working Group shared the view that it should be specified on an individual basis, based on the proposal made by the institution where the patient is placed, by involving an independent expert, when, during the adaptive period, it should be decided on what type of institution should the given patient be transferred to. As regards 101